10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■04-3059 I33S Tooka^a Koad October ll.20b« rag* 2 DbcHikioa The CityCouncil rcMcwcd the height issue for this proposed residence in September as an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a building permit based on exccssi\ e haghl. Council concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest w indow and the peak, was valid and appropriate. Council also coiKluded that the lower measuring point should be established at 94U*. which matched the original grade at the w est side of the current lot before the adjoimng home w as ra/ed. Council suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the height code, and applicant could make revisions to the peak feature and apply for a CUP for a cupola under Section 78-1 3b6. CUP Standards. Section 78-1366 does not contain any specific standards for approval of a CLP, but docs reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards of .Article V. DiMSion 2 (Sections 78*911 thru 78* 922). The pertinent c.xcerpt is 78-916(a) which states; (a) The FUnnlngCommiitlon ma> recommend and IheCouncil ma> grant a condiilonal ute permit at the ute permit %* at applied for or in modified form, if on ihe batit of Ihe appiicaiion and the et idrnce tubmiilrd, lii* Cll> makci ihc follotting flndingt: That the propntrd location of the conditional ute it in accord Mith the ub)cclitet of thii Chapter and the purpotes of the dittrict In tthich the tit* it located and Comprchcntlt* Municipal Plan; I hat the propoted localion of the conditional ute and the propoted condition under tt hich it would be operated or maintained would not be delriinenlal to Ihe public heatih, tafett or welfare, or materially injuriout to propertiet or improtemcnlt in the ticinll); and. Thai Ihe propoted conditional ute w III comply w iih each of the applicable prot itiont of ihit Chapter. Staff is on record as being reluctant to support tins application, based on a past history of fielding complaints by residents. Planning Commissioners and Council members i^ut exccssix e residential building heights in the City. How ever, if Planning Commission conclude that any negative unpacts of tlie excess height associated w iih the cupola can be suitably mitigated by attaching reasonable condiiions to an approx ol, or if Planmng Commission finds that there are no negam e unpacts associated w itii Uic proposal, then a rcconuncndation for approval may be m order. Comp Plan Policies . The Community .Management Plan (CMP) m Part 3 A, tlie Environmental Protection Plan, states the follow ing policy under “Urban Policies for Natural Resource .Management'* -2.Retrotiofl of aamral vegetatkHi w ill Unit the impact of urbaniaotioo as visible from Ibe lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height Minunum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcumng or excessixethumingof vegetation. Natural vegetatxm w ill be preserved on slopes. Retaining w alls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in w hich case they will be screened with natural vegeution.** r--